United States v. Noggin ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7927
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TIMOTHY LEON NOGGIN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:03-cr-00237-JRS; 3:07−cv−00071−JRS)
    Submitted:    July 30, 2009                 Decided:   August 3, 2009
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy Leon Noggin, Appellant Pro Se.    Olivia N. Hawkins,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy    Leon    Noggin       seeks      to    appeal      the    district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.    2009)    motion.        The     order      is   not     appealable        unless    a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).                    A certificate of appealability
    will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
    constitutional         right.”         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2)         (2006).        A
    prisoner       satisfies        this        standard      by     demonstrating            that
    reasonable       jurists      would     find      that    any        assessment      of     the
    constitutional         claims    by    the    district     court       is   debatable        or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.                  Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                                  We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Noggin has
    not     made    the    requisite       showing.          Accordingly,         we     deny    a
    certificate       of     appealability        and      dismiss       the    appeal.          We
    dispense       with    oral     argument       because         the    facts    and        legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-7927

Filed Date: 8/3/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021